Join Mailing List

April 15, 2004

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are asking for clarification of your position as a candidate for President of the United States on the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

We hesitate, at the outset, to use the term “marriage” to describe the legally sanctioned sexual union of same-gender couples. Throughout history, and for compelling reasons, marriage has been defined as the legally sanctioned (and encouraged) union of a man and a woman for (among other reasons) the bearing and rearing of children. Same-gender sexual unions challenge the sexual complementarity that provides the very root for the long-standing legal, historical and sociological notion of marriage.

Defend Marriage was organized specifically to preserve and maintain this critical social construct. The legalization of same-sex “marriage” is not a small matter. The pending redefinition of marriage will fundamentally change marriage from what it is (a legal relationship designed to optimize the social development of men, women and children) to something it has never been (a union defined by the idiosyncratic preferences of sexual partners).

We applaud your oft-stated opposition to the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” We also applaud your support of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As you apparently agree, the people of Massachusetts – not four unelected judges – should define marriage within the Commonwealth.

But, in light of the foregoing, we are puzzled at your opposition to amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent the federal courts from redefining marriage for the nation. We agree with your asserted belief that marriage should be left to the states. As you are undoubtedly aware, however, what “should be” is hardly what “will be.” There will be a federal definition of marriage. The only question is whether that federal definition will be provided by the people of the United States or by the federal courts.

It has been the long-standing strategy of activists to use the state and federal courts to redefine marriage. The strategy has two prongs.

The first prong rests upon the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under this approach, activists have sought to persuade one state judicial system to abandon marriage. They will then invoke the Full Faith and Credit Clause to force all other states to do the same. The actions of the Massachusetts court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health will trigger this strategy if (as its courts have ordered) the Commonwealth indeed recognizes previously unknown “marriages” beginning in May.

The second prong of the marital redefinition strategy rests upon establishment of a previously unknown federal constitutional “right” to same-sex “marriage.” With its decision in Lawrence v. Texas this past summer, the U.S. Supreme Court has laid all of the necessary groundwork for this previously unknown “right.” As Justice Scalia noted, Lawrence “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

The expanding reach of American constitutional law – where the judges invent and enforce “rights” nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people – have seriously eroded democratic decision making. The marriage debate raises the vital question whether America will continue to allow its courts, both state and federal, to continue to usurp the people’s prerogative to decide any and all questions of social justice simply because those questions are difficult and debatable. The very idea of a written Constitution in America is at stake.

It seems clear to all who have looked that – given time – the state and federal courts will demand that the American people abandon marriage. The fact that the Massachusetts Constitution said nothing about marriage did not stop the judges there. The fact that the federal Constitution likewise says nothing about marriage will not stop the federal courts. The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (which you opposed) will not, in the opinion of the majority of legal scholars, stand in the way. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment will do.

In light of your opposition to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, it is especially incumbent upon you to explain how marriage – an issue that you argue is a prerogative of the states – can be protected without a constitutional amendment. Given the political and legal realities surrounding the effort to legalize same sex marriage, your simple verbal support for marriage without further explanation constitutes nothing less than tacit support for the eventual judicial abandonment of marriage.

The defense of marriage is perhaps the most important social issue facing this or any other presidential campaign in our nation’s history. The strength and resiliency of American society depends directly on the strength of its marriages; the marriages which foster and produce the responsible and contributing citizens best able to deal with the ever-expanding problems faced by modern society. Without the strong anchor of marriage to continually revitalize and renew our society, America will be less successful in dealing with any problem that confronts it.

Enclosed is an article which lays out in some detail the case for a constitutional amendment to defend marriage. I will be happy to discuss this issue with you or your advisors. In the meantime, we look forward to receiving a detailed explanation of your position on this critical issue and the strategy by which you believe the prerogative of the people of the states to define marriage can and will be preserved.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman

cc: Kerry for President Campaign

Enclosure